« ElőzőTovább »
nesses, and it may be taken as an admitted fact that the admixture of the sexes in any workshop, however well conducted, is—as a rule-more or less productive of demoralizing habits. There are few working-men who cannot testify to the horribly obscene nature of the conversation carried on in many factories and workshops, and of the habits of licentiousness and depravity with which it is generally accompanied. In all future legislation on the subject, this is a point which should not be lost sight of. The employers have frequently been reproached with conniving at this state of things, but the fact, in reality, lies the other way. The more orderly, moral, and educated the operatives, the more regular, valuable, and free from trouble their labour becomes. The employers do not have the control of the labour-market. They are obliged to take the supply as it comes ; and, it may be said that, generally speaking, if the present class of intemperate, uneducated, and demoralized workers could be replaced by others precisely the reverse, the employers would be glad of the change, even at the expense of temporary inconvenience and an increase of wages, because the improved amount of skill and attention would afford ample compensation for any loss which might be occasioned at first.
Long hours of work are also more frequent in the smaller establishments than in those on a large scale. The general testimony of both employers and employed proves beyond all doubt that long hours and over-time are the least productive in the long run. On this point, I can speak from personal experience. The working people, especially children, will perform as much labour under a system of moderate and regular hours, and with much greater ease, as under a system of irregular hours and over-time. The effects of over-time upon the children and young people are more apparent than even in the older ones. They lose all taste for home; and, young as they are, their existence appears to alternate between the workshop, the concert- and dancing-room, the penny-show, the beershop, and the street. In some cases, as in that of the Hinckley hosiery workers, the evils of child-labour, over-time, and irregular hours of employment, are occasioned by the unavailing competition of the lowest class of hand-workers against the improved machinery which has found its way into the trade. They may be said to occupy a position similar to that of the London needle-women at the time of the introduction of the sewing-machine; and, as a rule, are gradually becoming absorbed in other trades. The one great obstacle, however, which prevents the majority of workers in an ill-paid trade from entering with facility into one where the scale of remuneration is higher, arises from their deficiency of education,-a deficiency occasioned by their early employment in factories and workshops. Unless the education is supplied to the working-classes during their earlier years, they have very little chance of procuring it afterwards. If by any means we could extend the blessings of education to the children now employed fin factories and other places, there would be no difficulty with succeeding generations. Mr. Heyman, lace-manufacturer, of Nottingham, observes that: “ If education were once generally enforced throughout the country for a short period, it would be so generally valued that there would be no further occasion to take
any measures to secure it.” If the social and moral condition of the working-classes is to be permanently improved, we must begin with the children. This is a fact generally conceded, the only question being as to how it should be effected, and whether legislative action is required. The general testimony of employers goes to show that child-labour, up to the age of 11 or 12, can, in a great measure, be dispensed with, and that they would gladly be freed from the necessity of employing it; but that this can only be accomplished by legislative enactment, especially in the case of small establishments. It may also be said that there is little real objection to a limitation of the hours of labour; in fact, it is found to be alınost indispensable to the proper working of a well-conducted factory, as the employers find it cheaper and more profitable to employ ten men during regular hours, than seven or eight during irregular hours. Over-time work is also accompanied with many objections, which render it the interest of the employer to dispense with it as much as possible. It occasions an increased cost for management, gas, &c., and also produces a much larger amount of unnecessary wear and tear of machinery; while the actual labour itself is the least productive. Mr. Wills, lace-manufacturer, of Nottingham, speaking on this point, says: “ I believe that nothing is really gained by night-work. A person who works late at night feels the effects of it the next day, is apt to come late, and cannot do the work so well.” Consequently, there is a tendency in the factory system towards a limitation of hours. The effect of this is observable in many ways; and is shown by the fact that in the majority of trades and manufactures there are traces of unconscious imitation in this respect, so far as the middle class of workshops and factories are concerned.
The real difficulty of legislation is to reach those employed in small establishments; and, unless this can be done, the core of the evil will remain untouched. There are a larger number in the aggregate of children of tender years employed in these places than in the larger factories. It would seem as if the only way to protect the children in these smaller establishments from the avarice or misconduct of the parents, is to render it punishable therein to employ children under a certain age, say ten or eleven, in any trade or manufacture whatever not coming under the factory laws. The parents should also, in certain cases, be rendered amenable, for it is clear that, to a very great extent, the employment of child-labour is forced by them upon the employers. But for the forced competition of the children with the adults, a larger number of the latter would be employed, and at a higher rate of wages. A partial withdrawal of the children from employment has been tried with success in Lancashire and other places, where the provisions of the Factories' Regulation Act have been enforced. This system is known as the “ short-time" system, and under its action the children between the ages of eight and twelve are partly occupied in the factory, and partly in the school. The results of this system have been to prove the correctness of the principles advanced by Mr. Edwin Chadwick, in his plan for half-time teaching. The “ short-timers” who attend school prove as ready at learning, and often become better scholars, than those who attend all day. It was predicted, when the short-time system was introduced, that the lessened amount of wages obtained by the children would prevent the parents from sending them to school ; but, so far from this being the case, it would appear that while in 1843 only 19 children out of every 100 attended public schools, in 1860 the proportion was 70 per 100. The benefits attending the adoption of the Factories' Regulation Act have been well described by Mr. R. Baker, Inspector of Factories, who, in his Report for October, 1859, states that: “ There is scarcely now to be seen in any of the manufacturing districts a crooked leg or a distorted spine, as the result of ctory labour, unless, indeed, it be an old man, one of the specimens of other days. The once pale and haggard faces are now ruddy and joyous; the once angular forms are now full and rounded; there is mirth in the step and happiness in the countenance. The physical condition of the future mothers of the working-classes may be challenged to meet that of any mothers of any country.” There is, indeed, a marked contrast between the children employed in the factories where the Act is enforced and those in factories where such is not the case. Even a stranger can observe the difference, although he may be ignorant of the cause. Many technical objections have been raised by those manufacturers adverse to parliamentary interference, but they are far from showing that the Factories' Regulation Act, in a modified shape, could not be rendered practicable in a large number of establishments; and the few instances in which inconivenience may ensue ought not to be allowed to weigh against any measure tending to better the condition of the child-workers. Private interests must give way to the public good. But there is no proof that any interests of consequence would be injured: the tendency of the evidence lies rather the other way, and this is adınitted by many of the employers. The advantages arising from any system whereby the thousands of child-workers in this kingdom should be enabled to procure a little education would be very great; it would amount to a social revolution, of which no man could predict the ultimate consequences. Had not the Factory Regulation Act been passed in 1844, would the industrial populations of Lancashire,have borne their trials with such admirable calmness and patience? To the spread of education amongst the Lancashire artisans, is rightly attributed the rapid development of such plans of social self-help as co-operation; yet few consider how much the progress of the educational movement has been accelerated by the operation of the Factory Act, which protects the children from being deprived of their educational rights. When this is found to be the case, it would be both unjust and impolitic to refuse the same meed of legislative protection to the other childworkers of the kingdom. Indeed, the principles of political economy demand that we should protect the children from the avarice of parents and employers. The infliction of the evils arising from the improper employment of children renders their case a national question, and not one of private convenience. But there is little doubt of the public attention being directed to these things; and, when this is the case, it will not be long before the remainder of our child-toilers are rescued from their present helpless, degraded, and miserable condition.
IV.-THE ROYAL ACADEMY COMMISSION. Some of the Academicians who appeared as witnesses before the Commission which recently sat to “ Inquire into the Present State of the Royal Academy," made it a matter of complaint-speaking rather in sorrow than in anger—that the public at large know scarcely anything about the Academy, and that, consequently, it has been generally misunderstood, or regarded with indifference, and its great public services have received little recognition.
Whether this ignorance and indifference, if they exist, may not be mainly chargeable to the supineness of the Academy itself, it is now hardly worth while to inquire, since both appear in a fair way of removal. The indifference, at any rate, is likely soon to pass away, for the Commissioners have issued a Report in which the actual system of the Academy is reviewed, and an entire change recommended in its constitution and conduct; and as these recommendations will probably form the ground of Parliamentary proceedings, they can hardly fail to provoke discussion and arouse inquiry. And if in the contro versy the services of the Academy fail of appreciation, it will assuredly be less from the lack of information than from the negligence or unskilfulness of those who cater for a busy and impatient public in setting it forth in a sufficiently popular or intelligible shape. For the Report is accompanied with a voluminous and almost exhaustive body of evidence, and an appendix of official papers ; whilst, as though to clear the way for the anticipated inquiry and debate, there was published, towards the close of last year, a sort of semi-official ' History of the Royal Academy of Arts, from its Foundation in 1768 to the Present Time, with Biographical Notices of all the Members : by William Sandby' (2 vols. 8vo, Longmans, 1862).
Blue-books are notoriously not light reading, and this on the Academy would, by most readers, not be deemed an exception. Those who take a special interest in the Academy or the condition of British Art will not be deterred by their formidable appearance from a close examination of the volumes. For those who are not so patient or so bold we propose to supply a sort of digest of the contents : to give, that is, a succinct analysis of the Report of the Commissioners, and, with the help of the evidence, to examine the value of their recommendations. But before taking in band the Report, we feel constrained, as an act of literary justice, to make a brief Note on Mr. Sandby's History. In doing this we believe we shall be rendering some service to the public; some also, it may be, to the art critics and journalists who may hereafter feel themselves called upon to take part in the Academic fray.
Mr. Sandby's 'History of the Royal Academy of Arts' is a handsome book in two goodly octavo volumes; is dedicated by permission to the Queen, as Patron of the Royal Academy;" and appears with the implied sanction of the President and Council of the Royal Academy, who gave the author permission to consult their records “ without any reservation," and supplied him with various important documents, which he has printed as appendices. It is therefore a work of
considerable pretension, and it has been treated by the press responding respect. The journals have, with unwonted unanimity, pronounced it a work of ability and research ; and the seal of critical approval might be supposed to be set upon it by the verdict of the only Review devoted to the Fine Arts in England. Mr. S. Redgrave, in an article on . The Early History of the Royal Academy,'
based on Mr. Sandby's book, says, His work is honestly and, within the bounds he has imposed on himself, well done ; and is a useful contribution to the neglected literature of English art.” (Fine Arts Quarterly Review, May, 1863, p. 43.)
"Honestly and well done," a useful contribution to the neglected literature of English art,” are emphatic words, but they are, alas ! in this instance, most unhappily chosen. Knowing the book—and perhaps few besides the author know it so well--we say at once and distinctly that the reviewer has made a grave mistake: that, as far as Mr. Sandby is concerned, his work is not “ honestly and well done, and that it is almost useless as a contribution to the neglected literature of English art—a work, in short, of no weight or authority.
A dry statement of some circumstances connected with one large section of the book will sufficiently establish this. The History consists of narrative and biography. The narrative occupies 332 pages, the biography 461. From the space they fill, and from the prominence given to them in the preface, it would seem that the biographies were intended to form the principal and most attractive feature of the work, and it would therefore be considered that the author had exercised a reasonable amount of diligence and investigation in their compilation. Estimated by the lowest standard, it is expected that a historian shall be a man of independent inquiry and research; that he will carefully weigh his authorities; and that the opinions he expresses shall be his own, or, where not his own, that he will make explicit reference to the authorities from whom he derives them. Mr. Sandby, however, ignores all such obligations. The chief of his “biographical notices have been taken bodily from previous writers, without a word of explanation or acknowledgment. Slight colourable alterations, omissions, and transpositions are made, sufficient in some instances to impart to them a specious difference of appearance; but at the same time these alterations, being apparently made with a view to conceal the method of procedure, render it difficult to attribute what has been done to literary inexperience, awkwardness, or inadvertence, as from the very extent of the transcription might otherwise be the case.
The work most largely pillaged by Mr. Sandby is the Biographical Division of the ‘English Cyclopædia, from which has been “conveyed,' for the most part verbally, page after page, and life after life-form, facts, quotations, comments, criticisms, reflections and all without the Cyclopædia being so much as named once in the whole book, or any reference made to it; and, in fact, without there being a word said to indicate that the passages so taken are not Mr. Sandby's own composition.
The 'English Cyclopædia’ only gives memoirs of distinguished men. Mr. Sandby could not, therefore, find the biographical notices of all